Gate 2: Landscape Mapping

Purpose: Map the structure of the decision before gathering evidence.

Announce: "Moving to Landscape Gate - let's map the decision structure."

Entry Criteria

•Thesis Gate completed
•Decision statement is clear
•Weight confirmed

Process

1. Surface Alternatives

Always include "do nothing" as an explicit option.

Ask:

•What are the options we're considering?
•Are there options we haven't considered?
•What would a contrarian suggest?

Document each alternative with a brief description.

2. Identify Decision Points

For each alternative, surface the underlying assumptions and choices.

Decision Point format:

•Statement: "We assume [X]" or "We would choose [Y]"
•Type: assumption (we believe) or choice (we decide)
•Confidence: high / medium / low / unknown

Ask probing questions one at a time:

•What has to be true for this to work?
•What are we assuming about the market/customers/technology?
•What choices does this lock us into?

3. Map Decision Intersections

Identify relationships between Decision Points:

•Depends on: If A is wrong, B doesn't matter
•Conflicts with: A and B can't both be true
•Reinforces: A being true strengthens B

4. Initial Knowns/Unknowns

Categorize what we know:

•Known: We have reliable information
•Unknown-Knowable: We could find out with research
•Unknown-Unknowable: Cannot be determined; must assume

Depth by Weight

Aspect	Light	Medium	Complete
Alternatives	2-3 + do nothing	4-5 + do nothing	5-6+ + creative options
Decision Points	Surface (3-5)	Thorough (6-10)	Comprehensive (10+)
Intersections	Note obvious	Map dependencies	Full analysis
Knowns/Unknowns	Quick categorization	Standard matrix	Detailed with confidence

Light: Quick alternative generation. Surface-level Decision Points. Note obvious intersections only.

Medium: Thorough alternative exploration. Full Decision Point mapping. Standard intersection analysis.

Complete: Generate creative/unconventional alternatives. Comprehensive Decision Points. Full intersection mapping with relationship types.

Upgrade Detection

Suggest upgrading if:

•More alternatives emerge than expected for the weight level
•Decision Points reveal unexpected complexity
•Multiple conflicting intersections surface
•User expresses uncertainty about key assumptions

Upgrade prompt:

code

⚠️ This decision is more complex than initially appeared -
[X alternatives emerged / multiple conflicting assumptions / etc.]

Current: [Weight] (~X min remaining)
Suggested: [Higher Weight] (~Y min remaining)

The deeper analysis would help us [specific benefit].

Continue at current depth, or upgrade?

Output

Update decision artifact with:

markdown

## Landscape Gate Summary

### Alternatives

1. **[Option A]**: [description]
2. **[Option B]**: [description]
3. **Do nothing**: [what happens]

### Decision Points

| ID | Statement | Type | Confidence | Alternative |
|----|-----------|------|------------|-------------|
| DP1 | [assumption/choice] | assumption | medium | Option A |
| DP2 | [assumption/choice] | choice | high | Option A |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Decision Intersections

- DP1 **depends on** DP3
- DP2 **conflicts with** DP5
- DP4 **reinforces** DP1

### Knowns/Unknowns

**Known:**
- [fact with source]

**Unknown-Knowable:**
- [question we can research]

**Unknown-Unknowable:**
- [thing we must assume]

Exit Criteria

•All realistic alternatives documented (including "do nothing")
•Decision Points surfaced for each alternative (depth per weight)
•Intersections mapped (depth per weight)
•Knowns/Unknowns categorized

Bias Watch

Watch for:

•Anchoring - Over-weighting the first option considered
•Confirmation bias - Only surfacing assumptions that support preferred option
•Groupthink - Missing alternatives that challenge consensus

Next Gate

Proceed to: deliberate-decisions:deep-research